9 ms·

It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. Many European countries have similar arrangements. Personally, I think all this is

by jan_g 13y ago

It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. Many European countries have similar arrangements. Personally, I think all this is money well spent by the governments as it gives nice financial boost to young parents and a sense that someone/something cares about them and their baby.

ProcessBlue 13y ago
True, true, I didn't want to go into that because that way lies a never ending comment chain on fiscal policy ;-).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
naradaellis 13y ago
Also there is more bang for the buck making sure babies are raised well and healthy, over trying to fix maladjusted and unhealthy teenagers and adults years later.
belorn 13y ago
> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. While its technically true, its really misrepresent it. Every time i hear that argument it sounds like a kid holding one part of a singular share of Microsoft stock, proclaiming to the world that he has now "funded Microsoft!" because of his $10 investment. Sure, in societies with lower tax, the state would be less likely to be funding a baby box. However, in trade of, society itself tend to then evolve a culture of charities to handle the slack. The US is a good example here, where such a box would likely also exist in some places, but maybe coupled with a bible or a cooperation logo on. People could then argue that such a thing is also "not free", but provide under advertisement for a religion or brand. So while its technically true that this is a gift paid by tax payers money, that description deserve a lesser attention that we currently are giving it.
- jan_g 13y ago
  It's more than a baby box. I do not know how familiar you are with some European countries' social system, but young parents are usually given quite a few months of vacation time and salary from the state, a sort of children allowance until a child is 18 years old (100EUR or so), tax deductions for every child until a child is 18 years old, kindergarten 'bonuses', free health care for every child and similar. So this definitely deserves a lot of attention as it makes young parents' lives quite easier. And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it.
  - rlpb 13y ago
    > And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it. What if it turned out that the baby pays for it because the improved average upbringing allows the baby to earn more and consequently pay more tax in absolute terms, though not in percentage terms? Would it be a cost to the taxpayer then?
    - jan_g 13y ago
      As it happens, I am one of such tax payers, since I live in a country with similar arrangements for young parents as Finland. Also, by having two kids, I have been twice a beneficiary of this system. To repeat, I completely support such system, I just don't agree with ProcessBlue's statement, quote, ".. bit fuzzy but if I remember correctly the FREE tier of forming babby in Finland includes ...".
    - icebraining 13y ago
      It depends. "Brain drain" is a real problem for many nations.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Not the ones with advanced economies and reliable social safety nets, though. People tend to leave places that don't offer economic security and opportunity for those that do.
mikeash 13y ago
Why exactly is this worth noting? Nobody jumps to point out that there's still somebody paying for the "free" tiers of Dropbox or GitHub or whatever. Yet the moment somebody mentions a "free" social program, people suddenly have to hammer on the point that somebody pays for it. We're not a bunch of imbeciles who think that social programs just rain from the sky....
- jan_g 13y ago
  Irregardless of your extremely poor attitude, I shall point out the obvious: 'ProcessBlue' himself has stated in capital letters that it is free. I was just correcting that.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Everybody knows what "free" means in that context, so your "correcting" is not actually adding anything to the conversation. Perhaps you think you are informing people, but everyone who reads your comment already knows what you're saying, so it's not informative at all.
- flagnog 13y ago
  Regardless whether or not people are imbeciles, they still have a habit of abstracting away common knowledge, and then forgetting that the common knowledge exists. I see this all the time in the computer industry. It's good to remind everyone now and again that free is not necessarily free.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Why do people only ever bring this up with social programs, and not any of the many other "free" things that are discussed around here?
    - jerf 13y ago
      Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten, because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spending it stupidly. We know this by simply looking around at political discourse, to the point that I almost wonder if you're dissembling when you claim that nobody thinks this way. Look harder. We should never forget that social spending is a cost/benefit question that never has zero costs. I actually personally find it a bit bizarre that people find this an objectionable statement. Realizing that money is not free and should be spent on worthwhile things to account for the coercion should lead to better spending. Defending the proposition that we shouldn't be so concerned about the costs is a recipe for producing less efficient spending, as always happens when costs are misjudged. The fact that this sort of thing has been politicized ought to lead you to wonder who is politicizing it, and what they're hiding behind it.
rdtsc 13y ago
> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payers Not sure why you are saying that. It is something I would tell my 5 year old maybe. Perhaps some do think God makes cardboard boxes magically appear in Finland out of thin air, but is it really worth mentioning that in this forum, if you expect your audience to operate at that level?

by jan_g 13y ago

ProcessBlue 13y ago

True, true, I didn't want to go into that because that way lies a never ending comment chain on fiscal policy ;-).

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

naradaellis 13y ago

Also there is more bang for the buck making sure babies are raised well and healthy, over trying to fix maladjusted and unhealthy teenagers and adults years later.

belorn 13y ago

> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. While its technically true, its really misrepresent it. Every time i hear that argument it sounds like a kid holding one part of a singular share of Microsoft stock, proclaiming to the world that he has now "funded Microsoft!" because of his $10 investment. Sure, in societies with lower tax, the state would be less likely to be funding a baby box. However, in trade of, society itself tend to then evolve a culture of charities to handle the slack. The US is a good example here, where such a box would likely also exist in some places, but maybe coupled with a bible or a cooperation logo on. People could then argue that such a thing is also "not free", but provide under advertisement for a religion or brand. So while its technically true that this is a gift paid by tax payers money, that description deserve a lesser attention that we currently are giving it.

jan_g 13y ago
It's more than a baby box. I do not know how familiar you are with some European countries' social system, but young parents are usually given quite a few months of vacation time and salary from the state, a sort of children allowance until a child is 18 years old (100EUR or so), tax deductions for every child until a child is 18 years old, kindergarten 'bonuses', free health care for every child and similar. So this definitely deserves a lot of attention as it makes young parents' lives quite easier. And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it.
- rlpb 13y ago
  > And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it. What if it turned out that the baby pays for it because the improved average upbringing allows the baby to earn more and consequently pay more tax in absolute terms, though not in percentage terms? Would it be a cost to the taxpayer then?
  - jan_g 13y ago
    As it happens, I am one of such tax payers, since I live in a country with similar arrangements for young parents as Finland. Also, by having two kids, I have been twice a beneficiary of this system. To repeat, I completely support such system, I just don't agree with ProcessBlue's statement, quote, ".. bit fuzzy but if I remember correctly the FREE tier of forming babby in Finland includes ...".
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It depends. "Brain drain" is a real problem for many nations.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Not the ones with advanced economies and reliable social safety nets, though. People tend to leave places that don't offer economic security and opportunity for those that do.

mikeash 13y ago

Why exactly is this worth noting? Nobody jumps to point out that there's still somebody paying for the "free" tiers of Dropbox or GitHub or whatever. Yet the moment somebody mentions a "free" social program, people suddenly have to hammer on the point that somebody pays for it. We're not a bunch of imbeciles who think that social programs just rain from the sky....

jan_g 13y ago
Irregardless of your extremely poor attitude, I shall point out the obvious: 'ProcessBlue' himself has stated in capital letters that it is free. I was just correcting that.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Everybody knows what "free" means in that context, so your "correcting" is not actually adding anything to the conversation. Perhaps you think you are informing people, but everyone who reads your comment already knows what you're saying, so it's not informative at all.
flagnog 13y ago
Regardless whether or not people are imbeciles, they still have a habit of abstracting away common knowledge, and then forgetting that the common knowledge exists. I see this all the time in the computer industry. It's good to remind everyone now and again that free is not necessarily free.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Why do people only ever bring this up with social programs, and not any of the many other "free" things that are discussed around here?
  - jerf 13y ago
    Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten, because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spending it stupidly. We know this by simply looking around at political discourse, to the point that I almost wonder if you're dissembling when you claim that nobody thinks this way. Look harder. We should never forget that social spending is a cost/benefit question that never has zero costs. I actually personally find it a bit bizarre that people find this an objectionable statement. Realizing that money is not free and should be spent on worthwhile things to account for the coercion should lead to better spending. Defending the proposition that we shouldn't be so concerned about the costs is a recipe for producing less efficient spending, as always happens when costs are misjudged. The fact that this sort of thing has been politicized ought to lead you to wonder who is politicizing it, and what they're hiding behind it.

rdtsc 13y ago

> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payers Not sure why you are saying that. It is something I would tell my 5 year old maybe. Perhaps some do think God makes cardboard boxes magically appear in Finland out of thin air, but is it really worth mentioning that in this forum, if you expect your audience to operate at that level?